http://www.desertbreezepublishing.com
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 06:42:28 +0000http://www.desertbreezepublishing.com/blog/colonial-homemaking-in-1772-by-cheryle-williams/
Tue, 15 Aug 2017 19:01:09 +0000http://www.desertbreezepublishing.com/blog/colonial-homemaking-in-1772-by-cheryle-williams/Today I’m blogging about the tasks
of a colonial homemaker in 1772 and her helpers, the young ladies of her
family. Join me to learn the finer points of life on the western Pennsylvania
frontier.

Making breakfast.Bread and milk were staples for breakfast and supper.

What goes good with
milk? Milk and hasty
pudding, Milk and stewed pumpkin, Milk and baked apples, Milk and berries.

In winter, milk was scarce. Sweetened cider diluted with water was used
instead. Soak the bread in this mixture. Yum!

Use milk to make cheese in a cheese press. Set the milk over the fire to warm and then
it curdles. Break the curds in a cheese basket. Shape the cheeses then
press them in a cheese press, place them on a cheese ladder and constantly
turn and rub them. (I think I'd have to learn this from Mom's example
instead of directions in a book.)

Tired of milk? Brew raspberry leaves for tea. Make preserves from your crop
of raspberries and other fruits.

No coffee? Make your own blend from parched rye and chestnuts.
The local trading post is miles away and you only go there for things you
can't make yourself.

November is the
killing time for animals. Harvest time. Load up your sausage making 'gun' and spew out
the contents into sausage casings.

Get out your spice mill and pepper grinder. You'll need those spices to preserve your
food over the long winter. The men will have built a smokehouse to hang up
the strips of deer carcass - set a fire in the stones below and allow the
smoke to rise and cure the meat.

A tasty meal for a chill autumn eve. Indian meal pudding, molasses and butter, a
neck of mutton and vegetables.

WAY TO GO, MOM! You kept your family of hard-laboring husband and perhaps ten
children all well-nourished over the course of a brutal Pennsylvania
winter!

Spring will be here before you know it. And the growing cycle will start all over
again.(And)

The colonial craftsman just delivered three new buckets at historic farm house Oliver Miller Homestead, South Park PA, where I'm a volunteer docent. I took this photo in 2016.

]]>Today I’m blogging about the tasks
of a colonial homemaker in 1772 and her helpers, the young ladies of her
family. Join me to learn the finer points of life on the western Pennsylvania
frontier.

Making breakfast.Bread and milk were staples for breakfast and supper.

What goes good with
milk? Milk and hasty
pudding, Milk and stewed pumpkin, Milk and baked apples, Milk and berries.

In winter, milk was scarce. Sweetened cider diluted with water was used
instead. Soak the bread in this mixture. Yum!

Use milk to make cheese in a cheese press. Set the milk over the fire to warm and then
it curdles. Break the curds in a cheese basket. Shape the cheeses then
press them in a cheese press, place them on a cheese ladder and constantly
turn and rub them. (I think I'd have to learn this from Mom's example
instead of directions in a book.)

Tired of milk? Brew raspberry leaves for tea. Make preserves from your crop
of raspberries and other fruits.

No coffee? Make your own blend from parched rye and chestnuts.
The local trading post is miles away and you only go there for things you
can't make yourself.

November is the
killing time for animals. Harvest time. Load up your sausage making 'gun' and spew out
the contents into sausage casings.

Get out your spice mill and pepper grinder. You'll need those spices to preserve your
food over the long winter. The men will have built a smokehouse to hang up
the strips of deer carcass - set a fire in the stones below and allow the
smoke to rise and cure the meat.

A tasty meal for a chill autumn eve. Indian meal pudding, molasses and butter, a
neck of mutton and vegetables.

WAY TO GO, MOM! You kept your family of hard-laboring husband and perhaps ten
children all well-nourished over the course of a brutal Pennsylvania
winter!

Spring will be here before you know it. And the growing cycle will start all over
again.(And)

The colonial craftsman just delivered three new buckets at historic farm house Oliver Miller Homestead, South Park PA, where I'm a volunteer docent. I took this photo in 2016.

]]>http://www.desertbreezepublishing.com/blog/how-did-he-know-that-by-michelle-levigne/
Sun, 11 Jun 2017 14:41:22 +0000http://www.desertbreezepublishing.com/blog/how-did-he-know-that-by-michelle-levigne/Today, I'm going to gripe about something I
notice in books by beginners as well as people who should know better!

Telepathy.

"Huh?" you may ask.

A very simple, crude illustration is a scene
where the POV character is Tom -- POV means the character through whose eyes
you see the scene, whose thoughts you share, whose sensory impressions you
share. Usually (not always -- there are always exceptions) fiction is
told in past tense, through the eyes of ONE narrator/POV character at a time.
Yes, there are some writers who tell you what's going on in EVERYONE's head at
the same time, but I find such writers really, really confusing. They seem to
think they're God ...

Tom occupied his time in the waiting room
watching Gregory, who got hungrier the longer he waited and made things worse
by thinking about nearby restaurants and their menus.

Excuse me, HOW does Tom know Gregory is hungry
and is thinking about nearby restaurants? Without being able to read Gregory's
mind? Has Gregory spoken aloud, has his stomach grumbled, has he started
flipping through the phone book and saying the names of restaurants aloud? How
does Tom KNOW what Gregory is thinking if he's not a telepath or a wizard?

Another illustration: Sharon was busy
with the Monday baking when George walked in, fuming about the fight he had
last week with Rick. He kicked the cabinet, making the flour canister fall down
on his foot and break two toe bones.

How does Sharon know George is fuming about
Rick, and two bones are broken? For that matter, if George is really the POV
character, how does HE know he has two broken bones? Is he a doctor, so he
knows just from the shrieking of pain in his foot that he has broken bones
instead of just bruised and bleeding flesh? (And why isn't he wearing shoes,
anyway? )

Always keep the impressions, the thoughts, the
emotions in the perspective of the person who is showing the reader the scene.
Unless you're reading science fiction or fantasy or horror, where people have
the ability to either broadcast whatever they're thinking and feeling, or
invade the thoughts of other people so they know what is going through their
minds ... ALWAYS ask yourself, and your POV character: How does he KNOW that
about the other character?

As a side note, it's redundant to say, "He
thought to himself." Who ELSE is he going to think to, unless he's a
telepath who can broadcast his thoughts to other people, or is in a Vulcan
mind-link with someone? Just leave it at "He thought," and save
yourself a few words. It adds up!

]]>Today, I'm going to gripe about something I
notice in books by beginners as well as people who should know better!

Telepathy.

"Huh?" you may ask.

A very simple, crude illustration is a scene
where the POV character is Tom -- POV means the character through whose eyes
you see the scene, whose thoughts you share, whose sensory impressions you
share. Usually (not always -- there are always exceptions) fiction is
told in past tense, through the eyes of ONE narrator/POV character at a time.
Yes, there are some writers who tell you what's going on in EVERYONE's head at
the same time, but I find such writers really, really confusing. They seem to
think they're God ...

Tom occupied his time in the waiting room
watching Gregory, who got hungrier the longer he waited and made things worse
by thinking about nearby restaurants and their menus.

Excuse me, HOW does Tom know Gregory is hungry
and is thinking about nearby restaurants? Without being able to read Gregory's
mind? Has Gregory spoken aloud, has his stomach grumbled, has he started
flipping through the phone book and saying the names of restaurants aloud? How
does Tom KNOW what Gregory is thinking if he's not a telepath or a wizard?

Another illustration: Sharon was busy
with the Monday baking when George walked in, fuming about the fight he had
last week with Rick. He kicked the cabinet, making the flour canister fall down
on his foot and break two toe bones.

How does Sharon know George is fuming about
Rick, and two bones are broken? For that matter, if George is really the POV
character, how does HE know he has two broken bones? Is he a doctor, so he
knows just from the shrieking of pain in his foot that he has broken bones
instead of just bruised and bleeding flesh? (And why isn't he wearing shoes,
anyway? )

Always keep the impressions, the thoughts, the
emotions in the perspective of the person who is showing the reader the scene.
Unless you're reading science fiction or fantasy or horror, where people have
the ability to either broadcast whatever they're thinking and feeling, or
invade the thoughts of other people so they know what is going through their
minds ... ALWAYS ask yourself, and your POV character: How does he KNOW that
about the other character?

As a side note, it's redundant to say, "He
thought to himself." Who ELSE is he going to think to, unless he's a
telepath who can broadcast his thoughts to other people, or is in a Vulcan
mind-link with someone? Just leave it at "He thought," and save
yourself a few words. It adds up!

]]>http://www.desertbreezepublishing.com/blog/yoga-by-deborah-nolan/
Sat, 20 May 2017 17:19:42 +0000http://www.desertbreezepublishing.com/blog/yoga-by-deborah-nolan/
In my latest release with Desert Breeze Publishing, HELLO AGAIN, the heroine, Cassie McBride, is new in town and trying to meet people
and make friends. A colleague suggests
she take a yoga class. Cassie is new to yoga and intimidated. In class, she puts her mat at the edge of the
room where the other self-conscious and slightly older folks are and lies in
wait for the inevitable much-dreaded first Downward Dog.

I wrote that chapter when I was still new to yoga and it’s based
upon my own experience. After retiring from working full time nearly ten years
ago, I was determined to try yoga. For some reason, I was sure that yoga would
be the perfect exercise for me if I gave it a try. But even in hip Hudson, NY
or sophisticated NYC, where I split my time, it took me a while to find the
right place. The yoga classes at the
nearby fitness center were populated by mostly twenty-somethings. They made me feel bad about myself, reminding
me that I was not athletic and confirming that I was as inflexible as I feared.

I’ve since learned that although the instructors at gyms may
be competent they’re not necessarily good teachers, in fact they’re often lacking
that “zen” personality which makes all the difference in the world. I eventually realized what I really was
looking for was a yoga
studio.

I was lucky to find one in my neighborhood on the Upper Westside
and then another in Hudson. I can’t say
I’ve mastered every Vinyasa flow sequence since, or that I’m even ready to
leave level one classes, but I now manage to get through a series of Downward
Dogs without expiring or even perspiring too heavily and have come to truly
appreciate yoga. I even have fantasies that I may, some day, for an instant,
manage a headstand.

So what was it about yoga that initially appealed and why
have I kept at it even in the face of unsympathetic teachers? It’s not about getting thin which had
initially been one of my goals. Unfortunately, yoga is not the answer. Although a class can be aerobic, that’s not
what it’s about and many classes aren’t aerobic at all, but involve stretching
and meditation, which are wonderful.

Although yoga is not about losing weight, it is about being
fit. As most of us age, our posture
suffers. And especially as writers, we
habitually slump over when we’re at our desks on the computer. A session of yoga is a constant reminder to
sit up straight, with shoulders back and down, head centered, not leaning
forward. Done right, that position
alleviates back pain and makes most of us look ten years younger, certainly a
good thing.

Then there’s the flexibility issue. My biggest fear with yoga was that I would
have to contort my body into a pretzel-like shape. That hasn’t happened yet and at my age, never
will. But I have stretched in every direction
at just about every class. All that
stretching has pretty much eliminated my sciatica problems. It also proved helpful this past winter when
I was hiking in the Caribbean. Half way
through the hike, when there was no turning back, we found out that to continue
we’d have to crouch down and slide through rock formations in order to get to
the other side. I’m sure I’d still be
there, on the other side of the boulder, if it hadn’t been the last few years
of regular yoga. Yoga has helped me to
be more flexible, but more importantly it’s taught me to forge ahead and not be
afraid because there’s always a way.

Which brings me to the heart of the matter. Yoga is not a competitive sport. It’s about one’s
own experience in the class and focusing on one’s own needs and goals.

This is very different than how we Westerners approach an
exercise class or most any other experience. Simply put, we’re not to compare
ourselves to anyone else in the class and instead need to think and feel how
we’re doing. Right from the beginning of
class when we sit in silence, with good posture, we explore what’s going on in
our own bodies. As we’re taken through
the day’s exercises, it’s the same, checking in with our selves and determining
what’s working and what’s not. And, if
we do manage to balance in tree poise, that’s good! And if we don’t, it’s simply not our
day. Some days our balance is better
than other days. Which also applies to
the headstand I someday might achieve. Even
if I get there and can do one, I’ll still be me. I will just be able to do a headstand.

So ultimately, for this retired New York lawyer, it’s fair
to say that the most important lesson yoga has taught me is not flexibility or
even fearlessness, but to try and achieve mindfulness and awareness that life
is not about winning or losing but about figuring out what is really important.
I’m working on it. As for Cassie
McBride? I like to think yoga helped her
move forward in her life after her divorce, and ultimately find happiness.

]]>
In my latest release with Desert Breeze Publishing, HELLO AGAIN, the heroine, Cassie McBride, is new in town and trying to meet people
and make friends. A colleague suggests
she take a yoga class. Cassie is new to yoga and intimidated. In class, she puts her mat at the edge of the
room where the other self-conscious and slightly older folks are and lies in
wait for the inevitable much-dreaded first Downward Dog.

I wrote that chapter when I was still new to yoga and it’s based
upon my own experience. After retiring from working full time nearly ten years
ago, I was determined to try yoga. For some reason, I was sure that yoga would
be the perfect exercise for me if I gave it a try. But even in hip Hudson, NY
or sophisticated NYC, where I split my time, it took me a while to find the
right place. The yoga classes at the
nearby fitness center were populated by mostly twenty-somethings. They made me feel bad about myself, reminding
me that I was not athletic and confirming that I was as inflexible as I feared.

I’ve since learned that although the instructors at gyms may
be competent they’re not necessarily good teachers, in fact they’re often lacking
that “zen” personality which makes all the difference in the world. I eventually realized what I really was
looking for was a yoga
studio.

I was lucky to find one in my neighborhood on the Upper Westside
and then another in Hudson. I can’t say
I’ve mastered every Vinyasa flow sequence since, or that I’m even ready to
leave level one classes, but I now manage to get through a series of Downward
Dogs without expiring or even perspiring too heavily and have come to truly
appreciate yoga. I even have fantasies that I may, some day, for an instant,
manage a headstand.

So what was it about yoga that initially appealed and why
have I kept at it even in the face of unsympathetic teachers? It’s not about getting thin which had
initially been one of my goals. Unfortunately, yoga is not the answer. Although a class can be aerobic, that’s not
what it’s about and many classes aren’t aerobic at all, but involve stretching
and meditation, which are wonderful.

Although yoga is not about losing weight, it is about being
fit. As most of us age, our posture
suffers. And especially as writers, we
habitually slump over when we’re at our desks on the computer. A session of yoga is a constant reminder to
sit up straight, with shoulders back and down, head centered, not leaning
forward. Done right, that position
alleviates back pain and makes most of us look ten years younger, certainly a
good thing.

Then there’s the flexibility issue. My biggest fear with yoga was that I would
have to contort my body into a pretzel-like shape. That hasn’t happened yet and at my age, never
will. But I have stretched in every direction
at just about every class. All that
stretching has pretty much eliminated my sciatica problems. It also proved helpful this past winter when
I was hiking in the Caribbean. Half way
through the hike, when there was no turning back, we found out that to continue
we’d have to crouch down and slide through rock formations in order to get to
the other side. I’m sure I’d still be
there, on the other side of the boulder, if it hadn’t been the last few years
of regular yoga. Yoga has helped me to
be more flexible, but more importantly it’s taught me to forge ahead and not be
afraid because there’s always a way.

Which brings me to the heart of the matter. Yoga is not a competitive sport. It’s about one’s
own experience in the class and focusing on one’s own needs and goals.

This is very different than how we Westerners approach an
exercise class or most any other experience. Simply put, we’re not to compare
ourselves to anyone else in the class and instead need to think and feel how
we’re doing. Right from the beginning of
class when we sit in silence, with good posture, we explore what’s going on in
our own bodies. As we’re taken through
the day’s exercises, it’s the same, checking in with our selves and determining
what’s working and what’s not. And, if
we do manage to balance in tree poise, that’s good! And if we don’t, it’s simply not our
day. Some days our balance is better
than other days. Which also applies to
the headstand I someday might achieve. Even
if I get there and can do one, I’ll still be me. I will just be able to do a headstand.

So ultimately, for this retired New York lawyer, it’s fair
to say that the most important lesson yoga has taught me is not flexibility or
even fearlessness, but to try and achieve mindfulness and awareness that life
is not about winning or losing but about figuring out what is really important.
I’m working on it. As for Cassie
McBride? I like to think yoga helped her
move forward in her life after her divorce, and ultimately find happiness.

]]>http://www.desertbreezepublishing.com/blog/consistency-is-survival-by-michelle-levigne/
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 15:04:02 +0000http://www.desertbreezepublishing.com/blog/consistency-is-survival-by-michelle-levigne/If you haven't picked this up by now, I make my
living as a freelance editor. That means publishers send me chapters or entire
books that they are going to publish, and my job is to proofread, to make sure
the books fit the publisher's guidelines and standards, to fix the mechanics
(grammar, spelling, punctuation, POV, verb tense) and ask questions when there
are holes in the story.

One of my big pet peeves, maybe the biggest one,
is CONSISTENCY.

Character names: I edited a YA book where, on
the first page, one character was referred to as Mom, Mummy, Mother, Timmy's
mother, Mrs. Wilson, Grace Wilson ... see where I'm going? If the reader isn't
paying attention, she'll think there are FIVE different characters on the page
with Timmy. Uh, wouldn't that be confusing to you? I'm not saying that other
characters in the story can't refer to that person by different names -- that
reflects their relationship with the character. Timmy sure wouldn't call his
mother "Mrs. Wilson" or "Grace," but wouldn't he refer to
her by one name? He wouldn't switch back and forth between "Mom,"
"Mummy," and "Mother," would he? You, as narrator, should
refer to the character by the same name, so readers know all the time who
you're referring to. And stay consistent through the whole book. I edited
another book where a character was referred to as Dr. Smithers for the first
three-quarters of the book -- then all of a sudden the narrator started talking
about Andrew. Who was Andrew? When did he enter the story? It took three pages
of wondering before another character referred to Andrew as Dr. Andrew
Smithers, when it finally clicked.

DON'T CONFUSE YOUR READERS!

Another consistency issue I face a lot deals
with mechanics, and especially editing books by Christian authors. In one
paragraph, they reference a Bible verse as 2 Corinthians 6:12 -- a paragraph
later they write the reference as II Peter 1:5 -- then a paragraph later the
references is the book of Daniel, second chapter, verse twelve. Or the author
puts the Bible verse in italics and indents from both sides with the reference
after the verse one-third of the time, and then the rest of the time leaves off
the italics or the indents or both, and sometimes puts the reference before the
verse.

See the inconsistencies there? Decide on the
format you're going to use for referencing things like Bible verses, or books
and authors you're quoting from, and STICK WITH IT. Say you quote from an
author, and directly after the quote you insert a footnote with the
bibliography information in it. Fine. The next time you quote someone, don't
put that bibliography info in parentheses. BE CONSISTENT. Either all footnotes,
or all parentheses.

Another issue: Capitalizing pronouns for God. I
prefer to capitalize, as a measure of respect. He, Him, His, etc. Too many
times when I'm editing someone, they start out lowercasing the pronouns for
God, then one chapter is capitalized, then they go back to lowercase. Usually
when that happens I stick with the formatting the book started out with. But
what do I do when the author starts out with both capitalization and
lowercasing in the same paragraph -- or even the same sentence? Usually when
that happens, I tell the author: Be consistent. I can't decide what the
majority is, so YOU have to decide and make the corrections. I can just imagine
they don't like that.

When you're being published by a traditional
publisher, there are standards you have to follow. Some publishers don't like
sentences that start with conjunctions, or a publisher will insist that all pronouns
referencing God be capitalized, and another refuses to allow that, and another
publisher wants 1 and 2 in front of Peter, Corinthians, Thessalonians, etc.,
while another insists on I and II. That's fine -- you follow the rules, and if
you don't want to follow the rules, get another publisher.

But in self-publishing ... YOU are the
publisher. You establish the standards. Once the mechanics are taken care of,
it's all up to you. But PLEASE be CONSISTENT. As someone once said, "It's
all right if you're wrong, as long as you're consistently wrong." In fact,
I think people are less likely to notice the silly mistakes if you don't keep
switching back and forth.

Make sense?

]]>If you haven't picked this up by now, I make my
living as a freelance editor. That means publishers send me chapters or entire
books that they are going to publish, and my job is to proofread, to make sure
the books fit the publisher's guidelines and standards, to fix the mechanics
(grammar, spelling, punctuation, POV, verb tense) and ask questions when there
are holes in the story.

One of my big pet peeves, maybe the biggest one,
is CONSISTENCY.

Character names: I edited a YA book where, on
the first page, one character was referred to as Mom, Mummy, Mother, Timmy's
mother, Mrs. Wilson, Grace Wilson ... see where I'm going? If the reader isn't
paying attention, she'll think there are FIVE different characters on the page
with Timmy. Uh, wouldn't that be confusing to you? I'm not saying that other
characters in the story can't refer to that person by different names -- that
reflects their relationship with the character. Timmy sure wouldn't call his
mother "Mrs. Wilson" or "Grace," but wouldn't he refer to
her by one name? He wouldn't switch back and forth between "Mom,"
"Mummy," and "Mother," would he? You, as narrator, should
refer to the character by the same name, so readers know all the time who
you're referring to. And stay consistent through the whole book. I edited
another book where a character was referred to as Dr. Smithers for the first
three-quarters of the book -- then all of a sudden the narrator started talking
about Andrew. Who was Andrew? When did he enter the story? It took three pages
of wondering before another character referred to Andrew as Dr. Andrew
Smithers, when it finally clicked.

DON'T CONFUSE YOUR READERS!

Another consistency issue I face a lot deals
with mechanics, and especially editing books by Christian authors. In one
paragraph, they reference a Bible verse as 2 Corinthians 6:12 -- a paragraph
later they write the reference as II Peter 1:5 -- then a paragraph later the
references is the book of Daniel, second chapter, verse twelve. Or the author
puts the Bible verse in italics and indents from both sides with the reference
after the verse one-third of the time, and then the rest of the time leaves off
the italics or the indents or both, and sometimes puts the reference before the
verse.

See the inconsistencies there? Decide on the
format you're going to use for referencing things like Bible verses, or books
and authors you're quoting from, and STICK WITH IT. Say you quote from an
author, and directly after the quote you insert a footnote with the
bibliography information in it. Fine. The next time you quote someone, don't
put that bibliography info in parentheses. BE CONSISTENT. Either all footnotes,
or all parentheses.

Another issue: Capitalizing pronouns for God. I
prefer to capitalize, as a measure of respect. He, Him, His, etc. Too many
times when I'm editing someone, they start out lowercasing the pronouns for
God, then one chapter is capitalized, then they go back to lowercase. Usually
when that happens I stick with the formatting the book started out with. But
what do I do when the author starts out with both capitalization and
lowercasing in the same paragraph -- or even the same sentence? Usually when
that happens, I tell the author: Be consistent. I can't decide what the
majority is, so YOU have to decide and make the corrections. I can just imagine
they don't like that.

When you're being published by a traditional
publisher, there are standards you have to follow. Some publishers don't like
sentences that start with conjunctions, or a publisher will insist that all pronouns
referencing God be capitalized, and another refuses to allow that, and another
publisher wants 1 and 2 in front of Peter, Corinthians, Thessalonians, etc.,
while another insists on I and II. That's fine -- you follow the rules, and if
you don't want to follow the rules, get another publisher.

But in self-publishing ... YOU are the
publisher. You establish the standards. Once the mechanics are taken care of,
it's all up to you. But PLEASE be CONSISTENT. As someone once said, "It's
all right if you're wrong, as long as you're consistently wrong." In fact,
I think people are less likely to notice the silly mistakes if you don't keep
switching back and forth.

Make sense?

]]>http://www.desertbreezepublishing.com/blog/who-me-naked-by-esther-mitchell/
Sun, 09 Apr 2017 15:20:15 +0000http://www.desertbreezepublishing.com/blog/who-me-naked-by-esther-mitchell/Vampires may be a red flag category in paranormal fiction,
but there's another creature that suffers even more from being under-researched
and inconsistently presented. This is
the fate of the theriomorph - what writers have taken to lovingly butchering as
"were-(insert animal here)."

Without
getting into the nitty-gritty of why I don't like the term "were-whatever,"
theriomorphs are one of the least-researched and most often incorrectly
portrayed of paranormal creatures in fiction.
Especially the Lycanthrope, which suffers from the Hollywood stereotype
– which is nowhere near to accurate, as Hollywood doesn't even seem to have
researched what real wolves are like.

If you're
going to write about Lycanthropes – or indeed any animalistic theriomorph – my
first and primary suggestion is research the animal you’re basing your
theriomorph around. Find out everything
you can about the animal your character is going to become, or shares traits
with. I guarantee that, for the most
part, you're going to be highly surprised by what you learn. Lycanthropes, especially, have suffered bad
press for centuries – most likely because the wolf itself has suffered bad press,
portrayed as a ruthless killer who hunts men and tears their throats out. Anyone who's studied wolves, or researched
them at all, knows this is false. Wolves
are extremely loyal, playful, and try to avoid human interaction whenever
possible. I can't imagine how they
perceive us, but I'd be willing to bet we'd be the monsters, since humanity has
actively hunted wolves, without cause, for centuries. But I digress…

Once you've
done your research on the animal in question, then turn to the character
him/herself. What nationality/cultural
group are they from? Does this culture
have specific mythology/traditions about theriomorphy? There are very few cultures on the face of
the Earth who do not have some kind
of historical, mythological or cultural beliefs about theriomorphy. It's a common mistake of paranormal fiction
authors to believe that every theriomorphic transformation must be
physical. In point of fact, there is
little historical or anecdotal evidence to suggest this, and more evidence to
suggest that the changes are spiritual or psychological.

Which
brings me perfectly to my next point – clothing. In the case of many theriomorphic stories
I've read, it seems the issue of clothing is never addressed. So, as we did with the vampire, let's create
a generic theriomorph to use as an example.

Meet
Jake. He's a North American
lycanthrope. I won't go into any more
personal detail at the moment, because it's not important. So, let's first look at what we discussed
above, referencing wolves and lycanthropic traditions. Since we know wolves aren't scary creatures
who eat helpless grandmothers and little girls in red capes, Jake's going to
have a wary disposition, be fiercely loyal to his small, close circle of
friends, be interested in finding a mate for life, not sleeping around (sorry,
wolves are monogamous, so cross out that "player" thought process
with your lycanthrope – he most likely wouldn't understand the concept), and
he's going to have a playful, mischievous side.
He'll likely be tolerant of children (wolves love their cubs – and the
cubs in a pack are everyone’s cubs,
not just the biological parents). Given
that he's from North America, we'll look at the Native American traditions a
little bit. Now, each one has a slightly
different take on theriomorphy. Some
(such as the Navajo and Hopi) believe that theriomorphs are sorcerors with evil
powers who change into animals to trick the unwary. Others, such as the Huron, Seneca, and
Iroquois, have legends that talk of great shamans who protected their tribes
through the use of theriomorphy. So,
let's go with that, and say Seneca.

And we've
run into our first problem. Native
American tradition doesn't ascribe any real differences between animals and
humans. The animal kingdom is
intricately connected to the human world, in their traditions, and all animals
are our brothers and sisters. Also, few
Native American legends tell of actual physical transformations from human to
animal or vice versa. Most traditions
and legends, when they speak of theriomorphy, speak in terms of the Otherworld,
where great shamans changed into other creatures in order to learn from them,
or to travel the Otherworld in search of knowledge and guidance. In essence, the transformation was spiritual,
sometimes even to the point that the shaman would go to live as, or act as, the
animal in question, for a time.

Hopefully,
you're beginning to see my point. But
let's be stereotypical for a moment, and say that Jake does physically change form.
As a wolf, he is free of his clothing (this is the case in most
theriomorphic stories). But what happens
when he changes back? Amazingly, his
clothing suddenly reappears, completely unaffected by his transformation.

Sounds
ridiculous, right? Unfortunately, it
happens way too often in paranormal fiction.
It's fine to have clothing magically appear and disappear if you're
working in fantasyland, or some other completely fictional world you've created
(I have a lycanthrope in one of my series who uses magic to remove his clothing
and replace it as he's changing form – but this is part of the definitions I
set in place for a fantasy world, and I make it quite clear what he does, and
stick to that). Just be conscious that
the rules you create, you still have to stick to. But if you're working in our world, you don't
have the luxury of playing with physics.
If Jake dumps his clothes with his transformation at point A, he can't
have them back when he turns human again at point B. He's going to be naked. So either he's going to have to be prepared
somehow (and please make it believable), or he's going to have to walk around
naked for a while.

]]>Vampires may be a red flag category in paranormal fiction,
but there's another creature that suffers even more from being under-researched
and inconsistently presented. This is
the fate of the theriomorph - what writers have taken to lovingly butchering as
"were-(insert animal here)."

Without
getting into the nitty-gritty of why I don't like the term "were-whatever,"
theriomorphs are one of the least-researched and most often incorrectly
portrayed of paranormal creatures in fiction.
Especially the Lycanthrope, which suffers from the Hollywood stereotype
– which is nowhere near to accurate, as Hollywood doesn't even seem to have
researched what real wolves are like.

If you're
going to write about Lycanthropes – or indeed any animalistic theriomorph – my
first and primary suggestion is research the animal you’re basing your
theriomorph around. Find out everything
you can about the animal your character is going to become, or shares traits
with. I guarantee that, for the most
part, you're going to be highly surprised by what you learn. Lycanthropes, especially, have suffered bad
press for centuries – most likely because the wolf itself has suffered bad press,
portrayed as a ruthless killer who hunts men and tears their throats out. Anyone who's studied wolves, or researched
them at all, knows this is false. Wolves
are extremely loyal, playful, and try to avoid human interaction whenever
possible. I can't imagine how they
perceive us, but I'd be willing to bet we'd be the monsters, since humanity has
actively hunted wolves, without cause, for centuries. But I digress…

Once you've
done your research on the animal in question, then turn to the character
him/herself. What nationality/cultural
group are they from? Does this culture
have specific mythology/traditions about theriomorphy? There are very few cultures on the face of
the Earth who do not have some kind
of historical, mythological or cultural beliefs about theriomorphy. It's a common mistake of paranormal fiction
authors to believe that every theriomorphic transformation must be
physical. In point of fact, there is
little historical or anecdotal evidence to suggest this, and more evidence to
suggest that the changes are spiritual or psychological.

Which
brings me perfectly to my next point – clothing. In the case of many theriomorphic stories
I've read, it seems the issue of clothing is never addressed. So, as we did with the vampire, let's create
a generic theriomorph to use as an example.

Meet
Jake. He's a North American
lycanthrope. I won't go into any more
personal detail at the moment, because it's not important. So, let's first look at what we discussed
above, referencing wolves and lycanthropic traditions. Since we know wolves aren't scary creatures
who eat helpless grandmothers and little girls in red capes, Jake's going to
have a wary disposition, be fiercely loyal to his small, close circle of
friends, be interested in finding a mate for life, not sleeping around (sorry,
wolves are monogamous, so cross out that "player" thought process
with your lycanthrope – he most likely wouldn't understand the concept), and
he's going to have a playful, mischievous side.
He'll likely be tolerant of children (wolves love their cubs – and the
cubs in a pack are everyone’s cubs,
not just the biological parents). Given
that he's from North America, we'll look at the Native American traditions a
little bit. Now, each one has a slightly
different take on theriomorphy. Some
(such as the Navajo and Hopi) believe that theriomorphs are sorcerors with evil
powers who change into animals to trick the unwary. Others, such as the Huron, Seneca, and
Iroquois, have legends that talk of great shamans who protected their tribes
through the use of theriomorphy. So,
let's go with that, and say Seneca.

And we've
run into our first problem. Native
American tradition doesn't ascribe any real differences between animals and
humans. The animal kingdom is
intricately connected to the human world, in their traditions, and all animals
are our brothers and sisters. Also, few
Native American legends tell of actual physical transformations from human to
animal or vice versa. Most traditions
and legends, when they speak of theriomorphy, speak in terms of the Otherworld,
where great shamans changed into other creatures in order to learn from them,
or to travel the Otherworld in search of knowledge and guidance. In essence, the transformation was spiritual,
sometimes even to the point that the shaman would go to live as, or act as, the
animal in question, for a time.

Hopefully,
you're beginning to see my point. But
let's be stereotypical for a moment, and say that Jake does physically change form.
As a wolf, he is free of his clothing (this is the case in most
theriomorphic stories). But what happens
when he changes back? Amazingly, his
clothing suddenly reappears, completely unaffected by his transformation.

Sounds
ridiculous, right? Unfortunately, it
happens way too often in paranormal fiction.
It's fine to have clothing magically appear and disappear if you're
working in fantasyland, or some other completely fictional world you've created
(I have a lycanthrope in one of my series who uses magic to remove his clothing
and replace it as he's changing form – but this is part of the definitions I
set in place for a fantasy world, and I make it quite clear what he does, and
stick to that). Just be conscious that
the rules you create, you still have to stick to. But if you're working in our world, you don't
have the luxury of playing with physics.
If Jake dumps his clothes with his transformation at point A, he can't
have them back when he turns human again at point B. He's going to be naked. So either he's going to have to be prepared
somehow (and please make it believable), or he's going to have to walk around
naked for a while.

It goes
without saying that when you're making up a Fantasy world, you get to make your
own set of magical rules, creatures, and artifacts. What apparently needs saying (perhaps
repeating) is that when you're crafting paranormal fiction set in this world, you're playing by a set of
rules already established in history and ancient mythology. This isn't to say you can't craft completely
fictitious artifacts, but you must remember that every artifact you create has
to have some basis in fact and physics.
If amulet A gifts a person with flight, you better be able to explain
exactly how it works, or you're likely to lose your readers.

If you've
done your research, you can usually come up with a historical or mythological
equivalent to work off of. This can a
model from which you build your own artifact, or you can make use of the actual
artifact itself, and even the story that goes with it. I’ve seen literally hundreds of adaptations of
Excalibur (some good, some bad). But
that’s far from the only sword out there.
A good place to start searching for mythological artifacts is one of the
following sites:

This is a
great place to start, as they have a reasonably extensive list, but I would
caution to not make this your sole source of information. Use it as a starting place, to get an idea
what you’re looking for, though.

Another
good site for starting research, if you’re looking for specifically
Irish/Celtic mythological weapons.

Once you’ve
figured out which artifact(s) you want to use for your basis, then it becomes a
matter of researching each specific item.
Some have lots of published information on them. Others are difficult to find information on,
and you may be forced to combine the attributes of more than one item (say, the
abilities of two mythological swords to make a single sword with a fictitious
name). There’s nothing wrong with that,
as long as you’re keeping the laws of physics in mind.

As with
every category here, you’ll notice that this one, too, makes use of research.
The single biggest asset to an author of paranormal fiction is research. Through that, you can craft stories that grab
hold of the readers and give them something completely unexpected to think
about.

]]>The Perilous Pike: Arcane Artifacts and More in Paranormal Fiction

It goes
without saying that when you're making up a Fantasy world, you get to make your
own set of magical rules, creatures, and artifacts. What apparently needs saying (perhaps
repeating) is that when you're crafting paranormal fiction set in this world, you're playing by a set of
rules already established in history and ancient mythology. This isn't to say you can't craft completely
fictitious artifacts, but you must remember that every artifact you create has
to have some basis in fact and physics.
If amulet A gifts a person with flight, you better be able to explain
exactly how it works, or you're likely to lose your readers.

If you've
done your research, you can usually come up with a historical or mythological
equivalent to work off of. This can a
model from which you build your own artifact, or you can make use of the actual
artifact itself, and even the story that goes with it. I’ve seen literally hundreds of adaptations of
Excalibur (some good, some bad). But
that’s far from the only sword out there.
A good place to start searching for mythological artifacts is one of the
following sites:

This is a
great place to start, as they have a reasonably extensive list, but I would
caution to not make this your sole source of information. Use it as a starting place, to get an idea
what you’re looking for, though.

Another
good site for starting research, if you’re looking for specifically
Irish/Celtic mythological weapons.

Once you’ve
figured out which artifact(s) you want to use for your basis, then it becomes a
matter of researching each specific item.
Some have lots of published information on them. Others are difficult to find information on,
and you may be forced to combine the attributes of more than one item (say, the
abilities of two mythological swords to make a single sword with a fictitious
name). There’s nothing wrong with that,
as long as you’re keeping the laws of physics in mind.

As with
every category here, you’ll notice that this one, too, makes use of research.
The single biggest asset to an author of paranormal fiction is research. Through that, you can craft stories that grab
hold of the readers and give them something completely unexpected to think
about.

Besides
learning the mechanics of grammar, spelling, punctuation, sentence structure
and POV, the best advice I can give you is to READ books about writing. And not
just books about writing, but books written by people who have PROVEN they know
what they're doing.

Yeah,
there are probably a lot of people out there who can offer you gobs of advice
on how to write your book, how to come up with your ideas, how to plot, how to
develop characters, how to determine POV, how to market, how to create tension
... but if they aren't doing it themselves, and proving they know what they're
doing with actual SALES ... if the only books they've written talk about how to
write ... it's kind of like hiring someone who never put on sneakers to be your
track coach, y'know? Can you really learn to be a painter from someone who
never unscrewed a tube of oil paints or picked up a brush, but only sells the
supplies at the local craft store?

I
recently read a book that should be a primer for those starting out, just to
give them an idea of what is involved in the writing life -- discipline,
differences in approach and attitude, differences in marketing, in creativity,
in just the day-to-day drudgery.

SECRETS OF SUCCESSFUL WRITERS, interviews with 50 published, selling authors, conducted
and edited by Darrell Pitt. It was an Amazon Kindle book -- and I think it was
even free at the time I got it. How can you beat that?

50
writers means 50 different viewpoints and approaches to writing, marketing,
craft, art, etc. Read and see how everybody handles their writing, and then use
the advice that works for YOU. Never, never, ever let someone tell you that
there is only one way to be a writer: their way. Listen to the pros, the ones
who are in the trenches and selling and still struggling and learning, think
hard, experiment, and apply what works for you.

And let
me repeat and re-emphasize -- READ.

]]>Read For Your Career

Besides
learning the mechanics of grammar, spelling, punctuation, sentence structure
and POV, the best advice I can give you is to READ books about writing. And not
just books about writing, but books written by people who have PROVEN they know
what they're doing.

Yeah,
there are probably a lot of people out there who can offer you gobs of advice
on how to write your book, how to come up with your ideas, how to plot, how to
develop characters, how to determine POV, how to market, how to create tension
... but if they aren't doing it themselves, and proving they know what they're
doing with actual SALES ... if the only books they've written talk about how to
write ... it's kind of like hiring someone who never put on sneakers to be your
track coach, y'know? Can you really learn to be a painter from someone who
never unscrewed a tube of oil paints or picked up a brush, but only sells the
supplies at the local craft store?

I
recently read a book that should be a primer for those starting out, just to
give them an idea of what is involved in the writing life -- discipline,
differences in approach and attitude, differences in marketing, in creativity,
in just the day-to-day drudgery.

SECRETS OF SUCCESSFUL WRITERS, interviews with 50 published, selling authors, conducted
and edited by Darrell Pitt. It was an Amazon Kindle book -- and I think it was
even free at the time I got it. How can you beat that?

50
writers means 50 different viewpoints and approaches to writing, marketing,
craft, art, etc. Read and see how everybody handles their writing, and then use
the advice that works for YOU. Never, never, ever let someone tell you that
there is only one way to be a writer: their way. Listen to the pros, the ones
who are in the trenches and selling and still struggling and learning, think
hard, experiment, and apply what works for you.

And let
me repeat and re-emphasize -- READ.

]]>http://www.desertbreezepublishing.com/blog/poof-of-smoke-paranormal-creatures-and-natural-phenomenon-by-esther-mitchell/
Sun, 26 Feb 2017 12:36:27 +0000http://www.desertbreezepublishing.com/blog/poof-of-smoke-paranormal-creatures-and-natural-phenomenon-by-esther-mitchell/This next segment is part of what I like to call the
paranormal author’s catalogue of natural disasters. These are often overlooked by readers, mostly
because as a culture we’ve become programmed to accept this incorrect
information, as well as to believe the impossible to be not only possible, but
required.

What are
these natural disasters? Put simply,
they’re things which happen or occur regularly in Nature without ill effect to
us, but which, for inexplicable reasons, have been turned into deadly pathogens
to paranormal creatures. To illustrate,
I've chosen two of the most common ones, though these don't even skim the top
of the barrel when it comes to these natural-paranormal pairings.

The first,
and most common, of these two cases is that of the vampire's aversion to
sunlight. While it is possible (and
indeed, seems logical) for a vampire to be wary of sunlight, the idea that when
exposed to even a minute trace of sunlight, a vampire will suddenly and
horribly spontaneously combust or disintegrate into a pillar of dust, is just
ridiculous. Why, you ask?

Natural
mechanics alone show the flaw in the sunlight theory of vampire
destruction. Nearly every mammal on the
face of the planet has some physical requirement for sunlight. Even many nocturnal animals gain some small
exposure to sunlight in the course of their lives, if only for minutes at a
time. Humans, especially, are programmed
to need sunlight. We absorb certain
vitamins from sunlight that science has proven are required to promote optimum
health and a sense of well-being.

Even a
Revenant Vampire, while being risen dead, shares one very important
physiological factor with the rest of us – namely, that they still have a human
body. If you put a dead body out in the
sunlight, what would happen to it?
Science says that exposure to sunlight alone would have less effect on
the rate of decomposition than other environmental factors, such as water,
scavenger and insect activity, wind/sand erosion… the list is lengthy, with sun
far at the bottom. Given that,
medically, the excessive exposure to sunlight causes dehydration in the human
body, the more plausible effect of sunlight on a dead body would be a form of
mummification. So, instead of bursting
into flames, it would be more plausible that your vampire would suffer extreme
dehydration rather rapidly (say hours as compared to days) and expire (again)
from an advanced form of heat stroke, unless they somehow obtained the necessary
liquids to combat dehydration. They’re certainly not going to explode, burst
into flames, or turn into a pile of ash or dust – not any more so than you or I
would.

The other
paranormal creature which is the victim of over-enthusiastic (and under-researched)
natural disaster is the lycanthrope. The
second natural myth that's been whole-heartedly (and wrongly) embraced is that
of the Full Moon Transformation. This
theory, used repeatedly in paranormal fiction and cinema, is a modern creation
with little to no supporting references from historical, mythical, or any other
format. It states that the Full Moon is
the first, and primary, cause of the lycanthropic shift.

In my
lectures on theriomorphy, I explain that there is little to no historical evidence
to suggest that the phase of the moon has any real effect on a theriomorphic
change. In fact, the only evidence to
suggest this at all comes from more modern psychiatric writings, which connect
the rise in psychiatric activity (relapses, new cases, violent outbursts) to
the change of the moon phase. The modern
connection of the Full Moon to lycanthropes seems solely to deal with a false
perception that wolves only howl with/at the Full Moon. In historical and mythological references to
lycanthropy (and, indeed, almost every form of theriomorphy involving a human
to animal transformation), everything from potions, to adornments, to magical
incantations, to pure choice and meditative states are listed as methods of
transformation. But few even make mention
of the moon, and I've yet to find any references, in all my years of searching,
that directly blame the moon's phase for the transformation of a lycanthrope.

As with all
other aspects of the paranormal, it is of great benefit to an author to thoroughly
research the chosen creature/being’s culture.
The more you know about their history, mythology, and cultural beliefs,
the more accurate your portrayal of the creature and what effects it will be.

]]>This next segment is part of what I like to call the
paranormal author’s catalogue of natural disasters. These are often overlooked by readers, mostly
because as a culture we’ve become programmed to accept this incorrect
information, as well as to believe the impossible to be not only possible, but
required.

What are
these natural disasters? Put simply,
they’re things which happen or occur regularly in Nature without ill effect to
us, but which, for inexplicable reasons, have been turned into deadly pathogens
to paranormal creatures. To illustrate,
I've chosen two of the most common ones, though these don't even skim the top
of the barrel when it comes to these natural-paranormal pairings.

The first,
and most common, of these two cases is that of the vampire's aversion to
sunlight. While it is possible (and
indeed, seems logical) for a vampire to be wary of sunlight, the idea that when
exposed to even a minute trace of sunlight, a vampire will suddenly and
horribly spontaneously combust or disintegrate into a pillar of dust, is just
ridiculous. Why, you ask?

Natural
mechanics alone show the flaw in the sunlight theory of vampire
destruction. Nearly every mammal on the
face of the planet has some physical requirement for sunlight. Even many nocturnal animals gain some small
exposure to sunlight in the course of their lives, if only for minutes at a
time. Humans, especially, are programmed
to need sunlight. We absorb certain
vitamins from sunlight that science has proven are required to promote optimum
health and a sense of well-being.

Even a
Revenant Vampire, while being risen dead, shares one very important
physiological factor with the rest of us – namely, that they still have a human
body. If you put a dead body out in the
sunlight, what would happen to it?
Science says that exposure to sunlight alone would have less effect on
the rate of decomposition than other environmental factors, such as water,
scavenger and insect activity, wind/sand erosion… the list is lengthy, with sun
far at the bottom. Given that,
medically, the excessive exposure to sunlight causes dehydration in the human
body, the more plausible effect of sunlight on a dead body would be a form of
mummification. So, instead of bursting
into flames, it would be more plausible that your vampire would suffer extreme
dehydration rather rapidly (say hours as compared to days) and expire (again)
from an advanced form of heat stroke, unless they somehow obtained the necessary
liquids to combat dehydration. They’re certainly not going to explode, burst
into flames, or turn into a pile of ash or dust – not any more so than you or I
would.

The other
paranormal creature which is the victim of over-enthusiastic (and under-researched)
natural disaster is the lycanthrope. The
second natural myth that's been whole-heartedly (and wrongly) embraced is that
of the Full Moon Transformation. This
theory, used repeatedly in paranormal fiction and cinema, is a modern creation
with little to no supporting references from historical, mythical, or any other
format. It states that the Full Moon is
the first, and primary, cause of the lycanthropic shift.

In my
lectures on theriomorphy, I explain that there is little to no historical evidence
to suggest that the phase of the moon has any real effect on a theriomorphic
change. In fact, the only evidence to
suggest this at all comes from more modern psychiatric writings, which connect
the rise in psychiatric activity (relapses, new cases, violent outbursts) to
the change of the moon phase. The modern
connection of the Full Moon to lycanthropes seems solely to deal with a false
perception that wolves only howl with/at the Full Moon. In historical and mythological references to
lycanthropy (and, indeed, almost every form of theriomorphy involving a human
to animal transformation), everything from potions, to adornments, to magical
incantations, to pure choice and meditative states are listed as methods of
transformation. But few even make mention
of the moon, and I've yet to find any references, in all my years of searching,
that directly blame the moon's phase for the transformation of a lycanthrope.

As with all
other aspects of the paranormal, it is of great benefit to an author to thoroughly
research the chosen creature/being’s culture.
The more you know about their history, mythology, and cultural beliefs,
the more accurate your portrayal of the creature and what effects it will be.

]]>http://www.desertbreezepublishing.com/blog/plotters-vs-panthers-by-michelle-levigne/
Sun, 19 Feb 2017 16:12:56 +0000http://www.desertbreezepublishing.com/blog/plotters-vs-panthers-by-michelle-levigne/Ah, yes, the great debate -- should you plot or
should you write by the seat-of-the-pants? Both sides of the debate can get
rather rabid, even nasty, advocating for what they believe is the right way to
write that novel.

You know what? It's THEIR right way, and just
because it's the way your favorite writer writes doesn't necessarily mean it
has to be YOUR right way.

Plotters: Planning
out the sequence of events, the scenes, who is in each scene, what elements of
the plot are introduced, complicated, resolved, advanced, whatever, in the
scene. Some people are so detailed, by the time they finish their outline, the
book is mostly written. Some people have 20-page, even 30-page outlines for
their books. Sitting down to write that book without knowing what's going to
happen, to whom, and exactly on what page ... it gives them hives. And the
inverse is true -- those people give ME hives. <G>

Pantsers: The
seat-of-the-pants writers. The ones who start out with an idea, an image in
their heads, or a question they want to explore. They might start with one
character or an intriguing scene, and take it from there. They're only a few
pages ahead of the readers in knowing what the hey-ya is going on in the book.
They couldn't write by an outline -- they couldn't write an
outline -- to save their lives. They'd rather chew glass than use an outline.

Okay, if those methods, and the different
variations and extremes work for you, then GO FOR IT!

Me ... I'm a plontser. I'm
in the middle. I know where I want my book to go, I have some general ideas of
the important turning points, the highs and lows, the complications in my book,
but very little beyond that, sometimes. Sometimes, if I'm
writing in an established universe, I have a lot of details, a lot of background,
and I have to write within the lines because I referred to these events or that
character's life in a previous book. Sometimes, though, I start off with an
outline of less than a page, with very vague details. Maybe I don't even know
the villain's name, or the name of the town/planet where the story takes place
-- but I learn those things as I go along, like a movie playing inside my head
-- and I get a 400-page book after starting out with a one-page outline. I give
myself the freedom to go off on tangents, to follow rabbit trails, to explore
-- and to rewrite that outline if it stifles me. I definitely have to change
that outline if my characters, who are becoming more three-dimensional as I get
deeper into the story, suddenly dig their heels in and say, "Nuh uh, ain't
goin' there -- I wanna do THIS, not what you have planned for me."

Don't argue with your characters. Change your
characters, rewrite your characters, do brain surgery and plastic surgery if
necessary, but don't waste your time and energy arguing with them. If you make
your characters do and say things that aren't "right" for them, the
way you've already written them, your readers will know and they won't be
happy.

The point of all this is you have to write by
the method that works for YOU, not what other people in your writing group,
your critique group, your creative writing class advocate. Do what works for
you.

Lots of people will tell you that when it comes
to writing, there are no hard-and-fast rules. That's not really true -- the
mechanics, the rules of grammar, spelling and punctuation, those ARE set,
non-negotiable rules. The standards and guidelines established by the publisher
you write for -- those are set and non-negotiable. Everything else? That's up
to you. The story is an exploration of your private world, so
that means the equipment you take with you, the path you follow through that
world, that's up to you. After all, just because your favorite trail guide
specializes in desert treks doesn't mean you have to use desert-compatible equipment
when you're going through the rainforest -- right? Same with writing. Adapt to
suit the story. Adapt to suit YOUR soul. Be a plotter, a pantser, or a
plontser, to whatever degree necessary. And don't let anybody tell you you're
wrong.

]]>Ah, yes, the great debate -- should you plot or
should you write by the seat-of-the-pants? Both sides of the debate can get
rather rabid, even nasty, advocating for what they believe is the right way to
write that novel.

You know what? It's THEIR right way, and just
because it's the way your favorite writer writes doesn't necessarily mean it
has to be YOUR right way.

Plotters: Planning
out the sequence of events, the scenes, who is in each scene, what elements of
the plot are introduced, complicated, resolved, advanced, whatever, in the
scene. Some people are so detailed, by the time they finish their outline, the
book is mostly written. Some people have 20-page, even 30-page outlines for
their books. Sitting down to write that book without knowing what's going to
happen, to whom, and exactly on what page ... it gives them hives. And the
inverse is true -- those people give ME hives. <G>

Pantsers: The
seat-of-the-pants writers. The ones who start out with an idea, an image in
their heads, or a question they want to explore. They might start with one
character or an intriguing scene, and take it from there. They're only a few
pages ahead of the readers in knowing what the hey-ya is going on in the book.
They couldn't write by an outline -- they couldn't write an
outline -- to save their lives. They'd rather chew glass than use an outline.

Okay, if those methods, and the different
variations and extremes work for you, then GO FOR IT!

Me ... I'm a plontser. I'm
in the middle. I know where I want my book to go, I have some general ideas of
the important turning points, the highs and lows, the complications in my book,
but very little beyond that, sometimes. Sometimes, if I'm
writing in an established universe, I have a lot of details, a lot of background,
and I have to write within the lines because I referred to these events or that
character's life in a previous book. Sometimes, though, I start off with an
outline of less than a page, with very vague details. Maybe I don't even know
the villain's name, or the name of the town/planet where the story takes place
-- but I learn those things as I go along, like a movie playing inside my head
-- and I get a 400-page book after starting out with a one-page outline. I give
myself the freedom to go off on tangents, to follow rabbit trails, to explore
-- and to rewrite that outline if it stifles me. I definitely have to change
that outline if my characters, who are becoming more three-dimensional as I get
deeper into the story, suddenly dig their heels in and say, "Nuh uh, ain't
goin' there -- I wanna do THIS, not what you have planned for me."

Don't argue with your characters. Change your
characters, rewrite your characters, do brain surgery and plastic surgery if
necessary, but don't waste your time and energy arguing with them. If you make
your characters do and say things that aren't "right" for them, the
way you've already written them, your readers will know and they won't be
happy.

The point of all this is you have to write by
the method that works for YOU, not what other people in your writing group,
your critique group, your creative writing class advocate. Do what works for
you.

Lots of people will tell you that when it comes
to writing, there are no hard-and-fast rules. That's not really true -- the
mechanics, the rules of grammar, spelling and punctuation, those ARE set,
non-negotiable rules. The standards and guidelines established by the publisher
you write for -- those are set and non-negotiable. Everything else? That's up
to you. The story is an exploration of your private world, so
that means the equipment you take with you, the path you follow through that
world, that's up to you. After all, just because your favorite trail guide
specializes in desert treks doesn't mean you have to use desert-compatible equipment
when you're going through the rainforest -- right? Same with writing. Adapt to
suit the story. Adapt to suit YOUR soul. Be a plotter, a pantser, or a
plontser, to whatever degree necessary. And don't let anybody tell you you're
wrong.

When you join the military, do they send you
onto the battlefield with spitballs instead of guns?

So why do people who decide to be writers slap
words onto the page and never take the time to polish, proofread, fix grammar,
spelling, punctuation, sentence structure, formatting, etc., before they send
those words to a publisher?

Yes, I know what you're about to say: Fixing
those piddling little details are what editors are for.

Umm, NO! A traditional publisher will read the
first paragraph of such a sloppy "masterpiece" and reject it
immediately. If not sooner. No publisher has the time and budget to make your
book readable. That is YOUR job -- BEFORE you submit.

The only publishers who accept manuscripts full
of grammar, spelling, punctuation and formatting mistakes CHARGE YOU to fix
them. I make my living as a freelance editor for people who self-publish, or
publishers who contract to publish people's books for them.
Books that traditional publishers won't touch because they're aimed at
audiences too small to be profitable, or they are incoherent messes. Spitballs
instead of rifles.

I just finished an editing job that had me
tearing my hair out. Bald patches in a woman my age are very unbecoming. Thank
goodness for cold weather and stocking caps ...

Why was this book so hard to edit? Each chapter
was ONE continuous (run-on) sentence. The only capital letter was at the start
of the chapter -- probably the word processing program did that. No periods to
indicate the stop of a sentence, very few commas to indicate phrasing. Do you
know how HARD it is to figure out what someone is trying to say, without
punctuation to indicate phrasing and where thoughts end?

That was most of my editing -- trying to find
the train of thought, where one sentence ended and another started. After I
inserted punctuation, then I fixed grammar and spelling. I couldn't tell if the
words/spelling were right until I knew what the author was trying to say. It
was exhausting. If I managed to get 15 pages edited in a day, that was a lot.
All because the author didn't use punctuation -- a simple period -- or
capitalize the start of each new sentence.

How do you do that? READ. READ. READ. READ. (get
the picture?) Read lots of books, big books, bestsellers, classics. Pay
attention to how authors put sentences together. Pay
attention to how punctuation is used. Learn grammar through example.

Writing is war, and with e-publishing and
self-publishing exploding, there are a whole lot more soldiers and armies
you're battling for readers. You want to go out there with the most effective
weapons possible -- not a bunch of spitballs.

The Right Word vs. the Almost-Right Word

Homonyms: sound-alike words. Using perspective
when you mean prospective. Using their when you mean there. It's for its. Adapt
for adopt.

Some people may say, "Well, it's close
enough to what you mean, people can figure it out, so why does it matter to get
the right word?"

IT MATTERS.

To misquote Mark Twain: The difference between
the right word and the almost-right word is the difference between lightning
and a lightning bug. Or maybe it was fire and firefly. There was an insect
there somewhere. (Wouldn't you like to know what the actual quote was? Aren't
you kind of ticked that I didn't take the time to look it up to be sure? Are
you learning, Grasshopper?)

If you want to be a writer, you have to get it
right -- that means the details, that means the mechanics. If you don't
care about the details, why should your readers care about the story you want
to tell? If you have a story to tell, and you're going to spend the time
getting the rest of it "right," why wouldn't you make the effort to
use the right words?

If you're going to take the time to weave
together the story so it makes sense, so it catches and holds the reader's
attention, so the reader cares about the characters, the conflict, the danger,
the goals, the tension -- why would you get sloppy when it comes to the actual
words and the meanings of the words you use to tell the story?

It makes me want to pull out my hair, to read
stories where the words are so badly chosen, so very wrong for what I know the
writer means, that it distracts me from the story. You don't want to frustrate
the reader, to the point of putting down the book and not picking it up again,
do you?

So learn the difference between affect and
effect -- between insure, assure and ensure -- adapt and adopt --
perspective and prospective -- their, they're, and there -- its and it's
-- or, are, our, and hour -- fare and fair -- on and on. Learn what the words
mean, and use them correctly!

]]>Publishing is War

When you join the military, do they send you
onto the battlefield with spitballs instead of guns?

So why do people who decide to be writers slap
words onto the page and never take the time to polish, proofread, fix grammar,
spelling, punctuation, sentence structure, formatting, etc., before they send
those words to a publisher?

Yes, I know what you're about to say: Fixing
those piddling little details are what editors are for.

Umm, NO! A traditional publisher will read the
first paragraph of such a sloppy "masterpiece" and reject it
immediately. If not sooner. No publisher has the time and budget to make your
book readable. That is YOUR job -- BEFORE you submit.

The only publishers who accept manuscripts full
of grammar, spelling, punctuation and formatting mistakes CHARGE YOU to fix
them. I make my living as a freelance editor for people who self-publish, or
publishers who contract to publish people's books for them.
Books that traditional publishers won't touch because they're aimed at
audiences too small to be profitable, or they are incoherent messes. Spitballs
instead of rifles.

I just finished an editing job that had me
tearing my hair out. Bald patches in a woman my age are very unbecoming. Thank
goodness for cold weather and stocking caps ...

Why was this book so hard to edit? Each chapter
was ONE continuous (run-on) sentence. The only capital letter was at the start
of the chapter -- probably the word processing program did that. No periods to
indicate the stop of a sentence, very few commas to indicate phrasing. Do you
know how HARD it is to figure out what someone is trying to say, without
punctuation to indicate phrasing and where thoughts end?

That was most of my editing -- trying to find
the train of thought, where one sentence ended and another started. After I
inserted punctuation, then I fixed grammar and spelling. I couldn't tell if the
words/spelling were right until I knew what the author was trying to say. It
was exhausting. If I managed to get 15 pages edited in a day, that was a lot.
All because the author didn't use punctuation -- a simple period -- or
capitalize the start of each new sentence.

How do you do that? READ. READ. READ. READ. (get
the picture?) Read lots of books, big books, bestsellers, classics. Pay
attention to how authors put sentences together. Pay
attention to how punctuation is used. Learn grammar through example.

Writing is war, and with e-publishing and
self-publishing exploding, there are a whole lot more soldiers and armies
you're battling for readers. You want to go out there with the most effective
weapons possible -- not a bunch of spitballs.

The Right Word vs. the Almost-Right Word

Homonyms: sound-alike words. Using perspective
when you mean prospective. Using their when you mean there. It's for its. Adapt
for adopt.

Some people may say, "Well, it's close
enough to what you mean, people can figure it out, so why does it matter to get
the right word?"

IT MATTERS.

To misquote Mark Twain: The difference between
the right word and the almost-right word is the difference between lightning
and a lightning bug. Or maybe it was fire and firefly. There was an insect
there somewhere. (Wouldn't you like to know what the actual quote was? Aren't
you kind of ticked that I didn't take the time to look it up to be sure? Are
you learning, Grasshopper?)

If you want to be a writer, you have to get it
right -- that means the details, that means the mechanics. If you don't
care about the details, why should your readers care about the story you want
to tell? If you have a story to tell, and you're going to spend the time
getting the rest of it "right," why wouldn't you make the effort to
use the right words?

If you're going to take the time to weave
together the story so it makes sense, so it catches and holds the reader's
attention, so the reader cares about the characters, the conflict, the danger,
the goals, the tension -- why would you get sloppy when it comes to the actual
words and the meanings of the words you use to tell the story?

It makes me want to pull out my hair, to read
stories where the words are so badly chosen, so very wrong for what I know the
writer means, that it distracts me from the story. You don't want to frustrate
the reader, to the point of putting down the book and not picking it up again,
do you?

So learn the difference between affect and
effect -- between insure, assure and ensure -- adapt and adopt --
perspective and prospective -- their, they're, and there -- its and it's
-- or, are, our, and hour -- fare and fair -- on and on. Learn what the words
mean, and use them correctly!